WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/RL/GEN/110 
20 April 2006 
 (06-1826) 
Negotiating Group on Rules 
 Original:   English 
 
 
TRANSPARENCY OF ANTI-DUMPING ACTIVITY 
Submission from the European Communities  
 
 
 The following communication, dated 19 April 2006,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the European Commission. 
  The submitting delegation has requested that th is paper, which was submitted to the Rules 
Negotiation Group as an informal document (JOB(06)/91) also be circulated as a formal document.  
_______________ 
 
1. The problem 
 Over the last decade, there h as been an upsurge in the number of Members which resort to the 
anti-dumping (AD) instrument.  Often, such increase  in AD activity is not accompanied by sufficient 
transparency with regard to the procedures and practices followed.  
 This has caused situations where exporters ar e faced with uncertainty  as to what they can 
expect during an anti-dumping proceeding (e.g. in term s of information required,  verification visits, or 
language to be used) and how the authority of an  importing country will normally react to certain 
situations (e.g. absence of domestic sales, or method of dumping margin calculation).  
 Often, such uncertainty has caused exporters not to co-operate in anti-dumping proceedings. 
This has an unfortunate side-effect since, in the absence of co-operation, no party can highlight 
authorities’ possible breaches of the ADA Agreem ent.  As a result, Members may apply lower 
standards when conducting AD investigations simply because their activity is not monitored.  This 
situation jeopardises the overall cred ibility of the AD instrument.  In  addition, it reduces the value of 
negotiating increased disciplines since they are lik ely to be treated with the same disregard. 
 Although it could be argued that such shortc omings could be addressed through the Dispute 
Settlement Mechanism (DSM), in practice this may be  difficult.  Resort to DSM consumes a lot of 
resources, and since an increasing number of anti-du mping cases and possible violations of current 
rules are between developing countries, this “solu tion of last resort” is often not followed.  
2. Proposed solution 
 The EC believe that there are merits in st reamlining the activity of the Committee on Anti-
dumping Practices with regard to the monitoring of  Members’ actual AD policies and practices.  In 
particular, it seems appropriate to establish a factual review system of each Member’s AD practices.  Such review, made on the basis of a factual report under the responsibility of an independent entity as 
the WTO Secretariat, would include a description of actual policies and practices and organizational aspects of the Member subject to review.  TN/RL/GEN/110 
Page 2  
 
   Therefore, the EC propose: 
• The setting-up of a review of anti-dumping activity, aiming at enhancing 
transparency of Members’ actual anti-dumping policy and practice with a view to increasing applied standards.  
• This review would be conducted by the Committee on Anti-dumping Practices, on the 
basis of a report submitted by the Member under review and would lead to a detailed 
report prepared by the WTO Secretariat (Rules Division).  
• In preparing its report, the Secretariat would seek the cooperation of the Member 
under review and would produce an assessment of  the facts and statistics presented. 
• Frequency of review would depend on the Member’s share of world initiations of 
anti-dumping investigations, for example, every three years for the most active 
Members, six years for the next Members.  Less active Members could be reviewed each eight years.  It could be discussed wh ether to limit the review to Members which 
have a minimum number of initiations. 
• The new system should operate in sufficient detail.  By way of illustration, the EC 
believe that such review should address, in detail, issues such as: statistics on 
proceedings carried out; determination of export price and normal value (e.g. use of 
third country sales vs constructed norma l value); details of comparison methods  
(adjustments); calculation of dumping marg in (methodologies under Article 2.4.2); 
details and methodology of injury calcul ations (price undercutting, underselling, 
depression or suppression); application of a le sser duty; application of public interest 
considerations; level of co-operation; use of  facts available; procedural requirements; 
treatment of confidential information; prac tice with regard to on-spot verifications; 
duty collection system (prospective vs re trospective); acceptance of undertakings; 
review investigations (under Articles 9 a nd 11); anti-circumvention procedures etc.  
3. Proposed text 
 The EC propose the following text: 
 “16.6 The Committee shall review each Members’ anti-dumping practices as laid down in 
annex x.  
Annex x 
Review of Anti-Dumping Activity 
 
Objectives  The purpose of the Review of Anti-Dumping Activ ity is to contribute to  the transparency of 
the Members’ actual practices in applying the rules under the Anti-dumping Agreement.  Such review 
enables the regular monitoring of individual Members’ anti-dumping policies and practices.  
Procedures 
(i) The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices (referre d to herein as the "ADC") is responsible 
for the carrying out of the anti-dumping review.  TN/RL/GEN/110 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (ii) The anti-dumping policies and practices of all Me mbers shall be subject to a periodic review.  
The number of investigations initiated by a Member as compared to the total number  of investigations 
initiated by all Members, in a recent representative pe riod, will be the determining factor in deciding 
on the order and frequency of reviews.  The first [ number to be specified (e.g. 6)] investigating 
authorities so identified shall be subject to a review every [ number to be specified  (e.g. 3)] years.  The 
next [ number to be specified (e.g. 8)] shall be reviewed every [ number to be specified (e.g. 6)] years.  
Other Members shall be reviewed every [ number to be specified (e.g. 8)] years, except that a longer 
period may be fixed for least-developed country Members.  
(iii) The ADC will carry-out the review on the basis of the following documentation: 
 (a) a factual report supplied by the Member under review;  
 (b) a factual report, to be drawn up by the Secretariat on its own responsibility, based on 
the information available to it and th at provided by the Member under review .  The 
Secretariat should seek clarification from such Member regarding its anti-dumping policies and practices on the basis of a check list reflecting the issues listed under (v).  
(iv) The report by the Member under review and by the Secretariat, together with the minutes of 
the respective meeting of the ADC, shall be circulated to Members. 
(v) The review should cover, as appropriate, a de tailed examination of the Member’s practices 
covering inter alia  issues such as:  
• statistics on proceedings carried-out;  
• determination of export price and normal va lue (e.g. use of third country sales vs 
constructed normal value) 
• details of comparison methods  (adjustments)  
• calculation of dumping margin (methodologies under Article 2.4.2) 
• details and methodology of injury calcula tions (price undercutting, underselling, 
depression or suppression) 
• application of a lesser duty 
• application of public interest considerations 
• level of co-operation 
• use of facts available 
• procedural requirements 
• treatment of confidential information  
• practice with regard to on-spot verifications 
• duty collection system (prospective vs retrospective) 
• acceptance of undertakings 
• review investigations (under Articles 9 and 11) 
•
 anti-circumvention procedures 
Reporting 
 The reports shall describe the anti-dumping policies and practices pursued by the Member 
under review, based on an agreed format to be decided upon by the ADC, and including the items 
referred to under (v) above.  The Secretariat shall make available technical assistance on request to 
developing country Members, and in particular to the least-developed country Members. Information 
contained in reports should, to the greatest extent possible, be coordinated with notifications made 
under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 16 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. ” 
__________